Apple attempts to scrub controversial “Genius” ads from the Internet

Meanwhile, much older Apple ads remain online for all to see.

Apple has marked its "Genius" ads as "private" on YouTube, preventing the public from viewing them.

Apple has apparently removed videos of its series of three divisive "Genius" ads from both its website and its YouTube channel. The move, first noticed by MacRumors, suggests that Apple wasn't happy with the overall reaction to the ads, which was largely critical of the fact that the ads appeared to paint Mac users as "clueless."

The series of "Genius" ads, which premiered during the opening ceremonies of the 2012 Summer Olympics, featured Mac users caught in ostensibly "emergency" situations, like putting together a Keynote presentation before a plane lands. The cheerful Apple Genius is there to help customers in need, or so the message goes.

But critics said that Apple's attempt to inject humor into the ads actually ended up making its customers look stupid. "The last thing it wants is to win new customers at the cost of looking ridiculous to its enthusiastic supporters," noted Ken Segall, the former TBWA\Chiat\Day creative director who spent years working with Steve Jobs to market the company's products.

"[T]he implementation is cheesy—too cheesy, even for an Apple ad—and borderline smarmy in all cases," opined Ars Senior Apple Editor Jacqui Cheng in a staff blog post. "The ads make Apple seem a little too smug for comfort." (I personally thought the ads were chuckle-worthy.)

Apple stopped running them as the Olympics wound down, so it was clear that the campaign may not have been expected to last anyway. But it's still strange that Apple removed all traces of them so soon. Apple kept its decidedly far more popular "Get a Mac" ads on its website for a much longer time after retiring the campaign. Apple still has an iPhone 4 ad from November 2010 posted to its YouTube channel.

It's possible that Apple decided it was embarrassed by the ads and didn't want a reminder of its misstep. The company did not respond to our request for comment by publication time, so we'll likely never know for sure what the reason was for the ads' removal.

So sort of like a few years back when VW noticed that they really appealed to terrible drivers and ran ads that showed that when you drove without looking out of the windshield, that a VW would protect you when you crash.Also the "sign and drive" ad that showed morons shopping for VWs.

When do we reach critical mass on the "Tim Cook can't cut it" concept?

I think that, if the shift occurs, it will follow the Elizabeth Kubler-Ross model. In which case, I'm still in the "denial" phase: sure, there haven't been any new "insanely great" developments from Apple; sure, every single thing that's happened under Cook has been incremental, expected, and clearly planned by Jobs before Cook's takeover; sure, the TV negotiations don't seem to be going as smoothly as all the previous "Blitzkrieg" negotiations that amassed all the iTunes content (music, movies, TV shows, magazines, books)...but just wait: things will pick up. The "next big thing" is right around the corner.

But I'm not sure any more. It's true that Jobs "handpicked" Cook...but he "handpicked" John Sculley, too. (The circumstances and Jobs' control over the circumstances of his departure were vastly different, but still.)

It's funny, because Jobs' detractors always claimed that he was merely "good at marketing"; that Apple never really invented anything but just "stole" others' ideas; that Jobs "took credit for" work that others at Apple did. In a bittersweet way, I find myself almost wishing this was true, because I hate to think that the "essence" of Apple could pass away along with its "prodigal son" founder.

It's kind of interesting seeing the different angles across sites. For instance, MacRumors merely says that Apple is pulling them from youTube and covers both the criticism and praise for the ads. Here, it's "Apple attempts to scrub controversial ads from the Internet", a far more negative slant.

The main source of criticism of these ads was bloggers, the same people who hated the "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" ads. In fact, nearly every Apple advertising campaign has been criticized, with the exception of the dancing silhouettes. Critics didn't even like the 1984 ad.

I think criticism of these Genius ads is overblown and that people attempting to portray this as Apple being "embarrassed" or "learning a lesson" are projecting their own dislike of the ads.

These ads seem counter intuitive to what Apple has tried to portray its image as; easy to use. Even though it does highlight their "Geniuses", I doubt most people want to hear that they have to seek help when using an Apple product.

Given that the brilliant robber who broke into Jobs' home has a taste for Apple products, the genius Apply ads are not that far off from portraying its fans. One could easily do a genius commercial for Jobs' robber.

Robber: "I can't get into this house."Genius: "It's easy. Check the coffee can for the keys. I can do that for you. Presto!"

Robber: "This mail says this is the home of Steve Jobs. What should I do now?"Genius: "Keeping stealing. Watch how I do it. Use this pillow case and pack it with quality Apple products. Add some jewelery for good measure."Robber: "Thank you Apple for making me smart! I'm a better robber because of my Apple genius!"

When do we reach critical mass on the "Tim Cook can't cut it" concept?

I think that, if the shift occurs, it will follow the Elizabeth Kubler-Ross model. In which case, I'm still in the "denial" phase: sure, there haven't been any new "insanely great" developments from Apple; sure, every single thing that's happened under Cook has been incremental, expected, and clearly planned by Jobs before Cook's takeover; sure, the TV negotiations don't seem to be going as smoothly as all the previous "Blitzkrieg" negotiations that amassed all the iTunes content (music, movies, TV shows, magazines, books)...but just wait: things will pick up. The "next big thing" is right around the corner.

But I'm not sure any more. It's true that Jobs "handpicked" Cook...but he "handpicked" John Sculley, too. (The circumstances and Jobs' control over the circumstances of his departure were vastly different, but still.)

It's funny, because Jobs' detractors always claimed that he was merely "good at marketing"; that Apple never really invented anything but just "stole" others' ideas; that Jobs "took credit for" work that others at Apple did. In a bittersweet way, I find myself almost wishing this was true, because I hate to think that the "essence" of Apple could pass away along with its "prodigal son" founder.

When do we reach critical mass on the "Tim Cook can't cut it" concept?

I think that, if the shift occurs, it will follow the Elizabeth Kubler-Ross model. In which case, I'm still in the "denial" phase: sure, there haven't been any new "insanely great" developments from Apple; sure, every single thing that's happened under Cook has been incremental, expected, and clearly planned by Jobs before Cook's takeover; sure, the TV negotiations don't seem to be going as smoothly as all the previous "Blitzkrieg" negotiations that amassed all the iTunes content (music, movies, TV shows, magazines, books)...but just wait: things will pick up. The "next big thing" is right around the corner.

I simply don’t understand sentiments like this. It hasn’t even been a year since Steve Jobs resigned (2 more days), let alone passed away. And now Apple fans the world over have come down with a case of selective amnesia. Does no one remember the hockey puck mouse? The Flower Power/Blue Dalmation iMacs? iTools, .mac, the ROKR, Ping? And those are just the indisputable failures under Steve’s second tenure. You think the TV negotiations aren’t going smoothly? They didn’t originally either, only ABC and NBC(?) were on board for iTunes the rest came reluctantly and at one point NBC took their shows off the air. Music negotiations too weren’t perfect, no indies, one major label (I forget which now) weren’t available at launch and they revolted a few years back introducing variable pricing which Steve was adamantly against.

Apple made mistakes when Jobs was in charge, they will continue to make mistakes now that he’s gone, but there’s nothing in the past 364 days (it’s a leap year right?) to indicate Apple is on the slipper slope back to mediocrity.

When do we reach critical mass on the "Tim Cook can't cut it" concept?

I think that, if the shift occurs, it will follow the Elizabeth Kubler-Ross model. In which case, I'm still in the "denial" phase: sure, there haven't been any new "insanely great" developments from Apple; sure, every single thing that's happened under Cook has been incremental, expected, and clearly planned by Jobs before Cook's takeover; sure, the TV negotiations don't seem to be going as smoothly as all the previous "Blitzkrieg" negotiations that amassed all the iTunes content (music, movies, TV shows, magazines, books)...but just wait: things will pick up. The "next big thing" is right around the corner.

But I'm not sure any more. It's true that Jobs "handpicked" Cook...but he "handpicked" John Sculley, too. (The circumstances and Jobs' control over the circumstances of his departure were vastly different, but still.)

It's funny, because Jobs' detractors always claimed that he was merely "good at marketing"; that Apple never really invented anything but just "stole" others' ideas; that Jobs "took credit for" work that others at Apple did. In a bittersweet way, I find myself almost wishing this was true, because I hate to think that the "essence" of Apple could pass away along with its "prodigal son" founder.

Even if you do nothing but remix, you still need talent.

Oh, I emphatically agree! I have no problem at all giving Steve Jobs 110% credit for everything Apple did -- I personally think he was a revolutionary genius on the order of Thomas Edison. I'm just saying that this belief tends to run at cross-purposes to the probability of Apple continuing to play the same role in the world that it did in the 1975-1985 period and then again in the 1997-2011 period. I'm saying that my desire to give him full credit and my desire to believe that Apple can "keep it up" are pushing in opposite directions and I have trouble facing this, emotionally.

However, to the extent that any artist or industrialist creates something, I believe that Jobs' "masterpiece" wasn't the Mac or the iPhone or any single product or idea, but was, instead, "Apple" itself -- the idea that there could be a company like that, structured like that and working like that, melding so many great counter-cultural ideas with so many proven mainstream ideas -- and that, based on this idea, that Apple will continue to thrive and dominate (the way, say, Disney kept going well beyond Walt Disney's 1970 demise).

When do we reach critical mass on the "Tim Cook can't cut it" concept?

I think that, if the shift occurs, it will follow the Elizabeth Kubler-Ross model. In which case, I'm still in the "denial" phase: sure, there haven't been any new "insanely great" developments from Apple; sure, every single thing that's happened under Cook has been incremental, expected, and clearly planned by Jobs before Cook's takeover; sure, the TV negotiations don't seem to be going as smoothly as all the previous "Blitzkrieg" negotiations that amassed all the iTunes content (music, movies, TV shows, magazines, books)...but just wait: things will pick up. The "next big thing" is right around the corner.

I simply don’t understand sentiments like this. It hasn’t even been a year since Steve Jobs resigned (2 more days), let alone passed away. And now Apple fans the world over have come down with a case of selective amnesia. Does no one remember the hockey puck mouse? The Flower Power/Blue Dalmation iMacs? iTools, .mac, the ROKR, Ping? And those are just the indisputable failures under Steve’s second tenure. You think the TV negotiations aren’t going smoothly? They didn’t originally either, only ABC and NBC(?) were on board for iTunes the rest came reluctantly and at one point NBC took their shows off the air. Music negotiations too weren’t perfect, no indies, one major label (I forget which now) weren’t available at launch and they revolted a few years back introducing variable pricing which Steve was adamantly against.

Apple made mistakes when Jobs was in charge, they will continue to make mistakes now that he’s gone, but there’s nothing in the past 364 days (it’s a leap year right?) to indicate Apple is on the slipper slope back to mediocrity.

I'm loath to respond to this because I don't want to get into the same old tired pro-Apple/con-Apple cage fight...but, come on, man. Even if you play Wall Street "analyst" and restrict your evaluation solely to the stock price, market cap and liquid assets, it's simply irrefutable that Apple thrived under Jobs (as compared to his immediate predecessors) to a degree that's unprecedented in the history of business.

The company did not respond to our request for comment by publication time, so we'll likely never know for sure what the reason was for the ads' removal.

Really? I think the second sentence of the article spelled out the reasons succinctly. It's perfectly acceptable to state and stand behind a position that Apple did something wrong and further that the reasons are obvious to casual observation.

I do find all of the blame being put on Tim Cook for Apple's recent dips in popularity pretty amusing. All of the reasons stem from the way Apple has always conducted business and especially put into motion by Steve Jobs. If Apple's behavior of recent can so easily be directly compared to similar events in the 80's and 90's, then it speaks to the fact that they haven't ever behaved differently. Some of those behaviors are wildly successful and others are exceptionally harmful to business.

Ah, gotta larf. 1: not as bad as Microsoft ads that were - actually, I don't have the words. 2: just read a confidential (well, paid for) analysts report about iPad mini. I mean, expectations include antigravity and warp drive. And texture. Do not dis Cook yet. Big steps take time, Cook understands q by q numbers are just Wall St with its head up it's ass. Ten (your currency here) says Apple is up 12% by EOY. Betcha.

Apple has a tradition of burying major marketing mistakes. Look at the Apple /// and the Lisa, for instance.

Marketing mistakes? The Apple /// and Lisa weren't marketing mistakes. They had other problems:

For the Apple ///, you had Apple's official troubleshooting advice: When the machine stops working, lift it several inches off of your desk and let it fall. If that doesn't fix the problem, try it again. (although the ultimate source of the trouble was Steve Job's refusal to allow a fan in the machine).

For the Lisa: Base price of $23000 (in 2012 dollars), $31000 if you wanted a hard disk (5MB) with it, and $3500 for an extra 512k RAM. That's a challenging sale for any marketer.

These ads seem counter intuitive to what Apple has tried to portray its image as; easy to use. Even though it does highlight their "Geniuses", I doubt most people want to hear that they have to seek help when using an Apple product.

Based on the 50,000 genius appointments apple boasts it schedules every single day, I think it is easy to say that most people find them just as complex to use as any other computing device, with the main difference being that there is usually only 1 way to do each thing on an Apple product, where android and windows counterparts often give multiple ways to do something.

It's kind of interesting seeing the different angles across sites. For instance, MacRumors merely says that Apple is pulling them from youTube and covers both the criticism and praise for the ads. Here, it's "Apple attempts to scrub controversial ads from the Internet", a far more negative slant.

True, there was some praise for the ads, but the overwhelming majority of criticism of the ads was negative.

Quote:

I think criticism of these Genius ads is overblown and that people attempting to portray this as Apple being "embarrassed" or "learning a lesson" are projecting their own dislike of the ads.

That's an interesting theory, but I personally liked the ads (as noted in the article itself)—I'm definitely not projecting my own dislike, because it doesn't exist.

It's kind of interesting seeing the different angles across sites. For instance, MacRumors merely says that Apple is pulling them from youTube and covers both the criticism and praise for the ads. Here, it's "Apple attempts to scrub controversial ads from the Internet", a far more negative slant.

The main source of criticism of these ads was bloggers, the same people who hated the "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" ads. In fact, nearly every Apple advertising campaign has been criticized, with the exception of the dancing silhouettes. Critics didn't even like the 1984 ad.

Hmm, disagree with the "same people who hated ..." sentiment. FWIW, my wife (marketing type) and I (engineering type) both thought those ads were lousy, precisely in the context of thinking that Apple ads are usually *great*. This is the only Apple ad campaign that has seemed so ham-handed to me.

OTOH, I agree that Ars's spin to call these ads "controversial" is a little much. And +1 to the poster mentioning the Streisand Effect. Pulling these ads is yet more ham-handedness from the one-time marketing wizards at Apple.

The ads went against one of Apple's long term marketing strategies which was "ease of use/user friendliness" or simplicity. They might have been smarter to show Mac users solving problems themselves and showing the "geniuses" solving someone's problems with other types of computers (except this would clash with reality, etc.). Or maybe just discussing some of their computers' "amazing" features humourously, like the Hodgeman commercials.They did portray their users as dummies and negate a huge swath of all their previous marketing.